This was posted 11 years 4 months 9 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Melbourne - Frankfurt Return Flights $1332 in July 2013 - Vietnam Airlines

70
Melbourne - Frankfurt Return Flights $1332 in July 2013 - Vietnam Airlines
Go to Deal
mini_wombat on 27/12/2012 - 12:55 vietnamairlines.com (260 clicks)
Last edited 28/12/2012 - 01:11 by 1 other user

Was looking for some flights to Europe in July next year and came across this deal and thought I share it. Nice early-bird fare

It is bookable on the Vietnam Airlines page. Not the best Airline (not sure about safety) but a very decent price to Europe.
It looks like it is a maximum of 3 months and I only found a few combinations for that price (only checked FRA also possible London and Paris)

Example:
Price 1333$ (incl. tax)
MEL - FRA, FRA - SGN, SGN - MEL
10/07/2013 - 10/08/2013 - 19/08/2013

It is going via Ho Chi Minh City. ( As it is very long stop (>10h) for the return flight I decided to combine it with an holiday in Vietnam.
Looks like this offer will be finished on the 31/12/2012 … not 100% sure.

More info here: http://www.bestflights.com.au/cheap-flights/phone-flights-de… (Thanks to MELso for the link).
(they also have some cheaper flights available which are not on the Vietnam airlines page …)

Travel Airfare Europe Frankfurt Germany Melbourne Victoria

Related Stores

Vietnam Airlines
Vietnam Airlines

closed Comments

  • cbpeh1 on 27/12/2012 - 13:16

    is it return?

    • jdr on 27/12/2012 - 13:25
      +2

      Whether they return depends on how reliable Vietnam airlines are. I've never heard of them before.

      But yes it is return pricing. The OP even mentions the return route.

  • Cluster on 27/12/2012 - 13:29
    +2

    "Not the best Airline (not sure about safety) but a very decent price to Europe. "

    Looking at their Wikipedia entry, the fleet comprises of modern Boeing and Airbus aircraft with two fatal crashes, in 1992 and 1997, both involving Soviet era aircraft. I wouldn't have a problem flying with them.

    • Russ on 27/12/2012 - 14:21
      +1

      The origin of an aircraft is rarely indicative of its safety. The big indicator for safety is how well the aircraft are MAINTAINED. This is often how cheap airlines achieve their lower prices: "you know the specified 1000-hour service interval on that part? We've never had one fail in that time, so service it every 1500 hours instead". (service intervals are calculated to ensure that the chance of parts failing in-flight is negligible).

      If they have crashed planes before, it's a big warning sign for any airline. Sometimes crashes are caused by freakish weather conditions, but much more often it is poor maintenance which causes crashes.

      That they haven't had a crash in 15 years, given their previous two crashes were five years apart, could be just luck.

      • blitz on 27/12/2012 - 14:39
        +1

        The origin of an aircraft is rarely indicative of its safety. The big indicator for safety is how well the aircraft are MAINTAINED.

        OK, so let's say both their Antonovs and their Boeings are maintained at the same service intervals. Which would you rather fly on???

        • Foma2 on 27/12/2012 - 15:59
          +1

          What's wrong with Antonovs planes ?
          BTW the fatal crashes they had was with Yakovlev-40 (by the time it was an obsolete model replaced by Yakovlev-42), and Tupolev 134. The latter one had a bad reputation as it is been originally designed as a middle range bomber, which than got a wider hull to accomodate passengers. So, reliability was not at the top of the list - if it fails air force pilots can always bail out ;-) Landing speed was quite high as well - not a good thing for a passenger plane.

        • Russ on 27/12/2012 - 18:29

          Agree with Foma2, nothing wrong with Antonov planes. If you pick the most famous Antonov, the AN124 "largest aeroplane in the world in mass production", it has had a total of four "hull-loss accidents" in its 30 years of production, and currently there are about 50 in use. About half of those are military aircraft, so the number of crashes is pretty low!

          If you pick Antonov's planes that were designed for passenger use, rather than military use, the oldest is now 15 years old. They don't have a terrible crash history.

          Boeings have had problems caused by bad design - read up on filght TWA800 if you want details, or Aloha Airlines flight 243. I'm not saying that Antonov airplanes are better, I'm just reinforcing that MAINTENANCE is more important than who the manufacturer is.

    • jdr on 27/12/2012 - 15:01

      "……with two fatal crashes, in 1992 and 1997"

      Interesting that both times there was all passengers, except one, killed. You are right that the old Russian planes were involved here but I just read about some other incidents that were more pilot related. For example hitting trees and crashing after the pilot ignored all other crew's please not to land in the conditions. Another example only last year where a plane struck a catering truck during takeoff. Another example (not a crash) where the plane lost communications and eventually the military was flanking the plane to guide it … then the crew realised that the comms weren't working because they had switched it off!

      I hope their training standards are better now but I can't imagine that they attract the best pilots.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/12/2012 - 13:41
    +1

    I've flown with them in Asia & they were fine, as mentioned by Cluster their planes are new(er then most of Qantas's fleet).

    If you could swing a day or two layover in HCM, then it'd be ideal for the family.

  • mini_wombat on 27/12/2012 - 13:47

    The flight is return … so the price is the cheapest I ever saw from Australia to Europe … but it is Vietnam Airlines!

    I checked the Skytrax reviews and they are more negative. I could accept bad service, no entertainment system, horrible food … but they also mention run down airplanes which is not a good sign. They have more modern airplanes which are used on the Europe flights …

    • pmupsinep on 27/12/2012 - 13:52
      +1

      They have more modern airplanes which are used on the Europe flights …

      Probably because the rest of their fleet would be banned from entering European airspace :)

    • cornucopia on 27/12/2012 - 14:39

      I flew Sydney-London via Singapore and Belgrade with JAT (the then Yugoslavian carrier) in the mid 1980s at a lower fare than this. Probably lucky to be here to tell the story, aircraft was a DC-10 and part of the flight path was over one of the Arab/Israeli wars in the middle east!! Everyone else flew around…..!! But is was really cheeeep flight!!

      • Foma2 on 27/12/2012 - 16:04
        +1

        Good story, mate.

    • leslie knope on 27/12/2012 - 15:16

      Just because an airplane has a run down cabin doesn't mean it is not maintained well. Look at QF's 767s or UA's 747s.
      I wouldn't have a safety issue flying VN, but a 10 hour layover is worth paying more to avoid.

  • Moondog on 27/12/2012 - 14:04

    I've flown VN to Paris - service is not the best and it is a LONG flight.

  • C781097 on 27/12/2012 - 15:30
    +1

    Cheaper still is Melbourne to Moscow $1144 return, same airline. Have flown with them a couple of times to Vietnam. Ok for the price but long haul may be painful. Safety wise I reckon more chance of getting run over crossing the street than crashing

  • jdr on 27/12/2012 - 15:50

    "…..I reckon more chance of getting run over crossing the street than crashing"
    particularly if a VA plane is travelling along that street :-) (not impossible if you read some of their old history of crashes)

  • branners on 27/12/2012 - 16:26

    A friend of mine, a qualified aircraft engineer, refers to these airlines as having and "experienced" fleet…

    • Foma2 on 27/12/2012 - 18:49
      +1

      I cannot see much difference between VA and Qantas since all maintenance has been outsourced to Thailand (or Malasia ?)

  • MELso on 27/12/2012 - 20:02
    +1

    Apparently $1269 on Bestflights for the same flight.

    http://www.bestflights.com.au/cheap-flights/phone-flights-de…

    Having said that, I flew Vietnam Airlines Business Class from Melbourne to Paris earlier in the year using Vietnam Airlines' own metal from MEL to SGN and Air France from SGN to CDG on a codeshare. For $3.8k-ish, it's a pretty good deal given that business class is typically $7k-ish on more reputable airlines (although the seats are angled, not fully flat, on both VN and AF; first world problems I know…).

    http://www.bestflights.com.au/cheap-flights/phone-flights-de…

    • mini_wombat on 28/12/2012 - 00:10

      Thanks MELso for the details and the bestflights link. Bestflights has more cheaper dates available than the Vietnamairlines page :-).

      I managed to book MEL - FRA 10/07 MEL - SGN 10/08 SGN - MEL 19/08 for $1333 (incl. all fees & taxes)
      I decided to add a 8 day Vietnam holiday instead of staying longer in Europe :-). Couldn't resist for that price.

      Need now a nice hotel in Vietnam …

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join